"Consent of the Governed": Now a Commodity

[LadyTevar]

Are you seriously trying to say that understanding and applying concepts is no longer relevant?

Not 'application.' He's saying 'understanding' is either inconsequential or less so; not terribly profound considering his post is poor on comparisons and measures. Given the philosophical bent of the post, he might think a firm foundation in philosophy is necessary to effectively conduct business in science and engineering.

I'm still trying to figure out if he even 'thinks', or just apes.

[Mad]

For a long time I have been trying to grasp the distinction between knowing and understanding. I think I have recently stumbled upon a new theory that might help me a great deal in my attempt to discover this distinction.

The distinction is that understanding something means being able to reason about that thing. It means being able to answer "why." Knowing something is being able to answer "who," "what," "where," "when," and "how."

Given your post style thus far, it appears that you lack understanding. You are copy-and-pasting pre-written arguments. This shows that you know about the subjects, but your inability thus far to actually expand on the reasoning by directly replying to questions suggests that you don't truly understand your own arguments. You appear unable to distill and rephrase the arguments in a meaningful way suited for online debate. Someone with true understanding of the material would be more than capable of such.

I have been for some time trying to understand the meaning of the word ‘understand’. I can remember reading the book “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and after reading some reviews I recognized that the book is about ‘quality’. I must admit that I do not remember much else.

Metaphors seem to be necessary for communicating understanding regarding such concepts as mind, consciousness, morality, understanding, self, etc.

I think that the metaphors ‘knowing is quantity’ and ‘understanding is quality’ are useful for distinguishing the difference between knowing and understanding. Of course the concept ‘quality’ is a rather elusive concept it self.

I have been studying the concepts ‘reification’ (to regard something abstract as a material thing) and ‘commodification’ (to turn an intrinsic value into an object of commerce), which are concepts studied by the soft sciences in an attempt to understand the nature of capitalism. In that process I came across this Marx quote:

“Through the subordination of man to the machine the situation arises in which men are effaced [to cause to vanish] by their labor. In which the pendulum of the clock has become as accurate a measure of the relative activity of two workers as it is of the speed of two locomotives. Therefore, we should not say that one man’s hour is worth another man’s hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing; he is at most an incarnation of time. Quality no longer matters. Quantity alone decides everything: hour for hour, day for day…”

I think that the general idea contained in this Marx quote might be said for education it self. Understanding no longer matters. Knowing alone decides everything. Education is commodified and the product of education is a commodity (credentials and a data base).

One Amazon reviewer said that this was his favorite "We want to make good time, but for us now this measured with emphasis on 'good' rather than 'time' and when you make a shift in emphasis the whole approach changes."

I think that our years of schooling serve a useful purpose because those years prepare us to be good workers. However, in our adult years “when you make a shift in emphasis the whole approach changes."

So your response to my assertion that you don't have understanding because you are copy-and-pasting pre-written responses is... to copy and paste a pre-written response???

And, by the way, understanding is very important for true advances in any field. Simple regurgitation, or working knowledge, of material may allow one to get by, but advances in any field will be severely hampered without an understanding of that material.

The average person doesn't need to understand many things in today's society, but to say that "understanding no longer matters" is false.

If you really were an engineer, then you should have known that. Or did you somehow get by using regurgitation and without understanding and applying the concepts you were learning?

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Are you seriously trying to say that understanding and applying concepts is no longer relevant?

Not 'application.' He's saying 'understanding' is either inconsequential or less so; not terribly profound considering his post is poor on comparisons and measures. Given the philosophical bent of the post, he might think a firm foundation in philosophy is necessary to effectively conduct business in science and engineering.

You can't effectively apply something without understanding it first. It's like creationists saying evolution supports the Bible, because giraffes couldn't have possibly evolved such long necks without God. Or perhaps when they try to talk about how statistics say life could never come to pass without God, because of the long odds. They don't understand it, so they can't apply it. The two are undeniably linked.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Edit: That applies only to knowledge of course. Physical objects or phenomena such as electricity have often been applied before they were fully understood. Those applying it, of course, still had to understand a certian amount about it before it was remotely useful.

[metavac]

You can't effectively apply something without understanding it first.

We can easily point examples of applications that require only a minimum threshold of understanding to be used effectively, regardless of how rich a deeper understanding might be. You don't need to know anything about electrodynamics or solid-state physics to know how to use a remote control. You don't need to know anything about dynamo theory to successfully apply a compass to land navigation. You don't have to be even marginally familiar with quantum fields to be a good nuclear engineer. You don't have to know Levita-Citra connections to do tensor calculus. Obviously, you don't need to be a philosopher of science to do quantitative work in area of study.

I'm only guessing, but I think coberst is arguing the opposite. But like I said, he doesn't offer anything concrete to hint at his point.

[metavac]

Ghetto edit: That should read Levi-Civita connection. I've got a song stuck in my head.

[Setesh]

You can't effectively apply something without understanding it first.

We can easily point examples of applications that require only a minimum threshold of understanding to be used effectively, regardless of how rich a deeper understanding might be. You don't need to know anything about electrodynamics or solid-state physics to know how to use a remote control. You don't need to know anything about dynamo theory to successfully apply a compass to land navigation. You don't have to be even marginally familiar with quantum fields to be a good nuclear engineer. You don't have to know Levita-Citra connections to do tensor calculus. Obviously, you don't need to be a philosopher of science to do quantitative work in area of study.

I'm only guessing, but I think coberst is arguing the opposite. But like I said, he doesn't offer anything concrete to hint at his point.

No but you do to know how to build one. Your running up the wrong tree here. Your examples all require an entirely different field of understanding to work.

The remote control needs only bacic reading and moter control to use, but that has nothing to do with understanding the science behind the remote. See when you use the remote you aren't the one applying the principles behind it, your merely benefiting from them. Applying those principles was done by the man designing the remote, and he most certainly understood the principles behind it. (well maybe not solid-state physics, electronics is more likely).

A nuclear engineer doesn't need to understand quantum fields because his work doesn't require that knowledge.

All your examples are in this line of mis-reason. Your trying to apply the wrong set of information to the matter at hand. Your mixing up application with use in some cases.

[metavac]

No but you do to know how to build one.

Not even then. All you need is parts and a circuit diagram.

Your running up the wrong tree here. Your examples all require an entirely different field of understanding to work.

Remember, the argument coberst is making, as I understand it, concerns the relationship between understanding and application. That said, you're restating my point. Every single example I provided uses a subset of some broader knowledge that is nevertheless fully applicable with in some domain of use. "Different" is a correct word to use, but so is "derived."

All your examples are in this line of mis-reason. Your trying to apply the wrong set of information to the matter at hand. Your mixing up application with use in some cases.

It's hard to mix up application and use, they are synonymous after all.

[metavac]

Granted, the remote control and land navigation examples were a bad one. On the other hand, we can recover nuclear physics for engineers from QFTs. We can recover the covariant derivative from Levi-Civita connections. Yet you don't need QFT to use Lawson's criterion, and you don't need to know affine connections to use Christoffel symbols.

[coberst]

Are you seriously trying to say that understanding and applying concepts is no longer relevant?

Not 'application.' He's saying 'understanding' is either inconsequential or less so; not terribly profound considering his post is poor on comparisons and measures. Given the philosophical bent of the post, he might think a firm foundation in philosophy is necessary to effectively conduct business in science and engineering.

I'm still trying to figure out if he even 'thinks', or just apes.

I do not think understanding can be taught. Understanding is an act of creation and each of us must learn how to do it if we are every to recognize the "ecstasy of understanding".

Metaphors seem to be the only way to talk about such things. We commonly use 'knowing is seeing' and 'understanding is grasping' I think the difference here is obvious. Seeing is easy and grasping is difficult and much more intimate. If one has had the experience of understanding I think they will recognize that it is much different than knowing.

Knowing is painting-by-number and understanding is an original piece of art. A eureka moment is an understanding moment. I have never had an epiphany but I guess it may be an act of understanding.

To understand requires work and time and curiosity and caring.

It seems to me that philosophy has handled the words ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’ with a great deal of ambiguity.

All this goes double for the meaning of ‘wisdom’.

[coberst]

Are you seriously trying to say that understanding and applying concepts is no longer relevant?

Not 'application.' He's saying 'understanding' is either inconsequential or less so; not terribly profound considering his post is poor on comparisons and measures. Given the philosophical bent of the post, he might think a firm foundation in philosophy is necessary to effectively conduct business in science and engineering.

You can't effectively apply something without understanding it first. It's like creationists saying evolution supports the Bible, because giraffes couldn't have possibly evolved such long necks without God. Or perhaps when they try to talk about how statistics say life could never come to pass without God, because of the long odds. They don't understand it, so they can't apply it. The two are undeniably linked.

Reading Begets Knowing, Writing Begets Understanding

Knowing is like day breaking, understanding is like lightening striking.

Comprehension is the payoff for struggle. There is a hierarchy of comprehension. Like a pyramid with the base being awareness, followed by consciousness then comes knowledge with understanding at the pinnacle of the pyramid.

Reading is the key to knowing and essay writing is the canvas for creating understanding.

Of all the creatures perhaps humans are the only ones who fail to live up to their potential. Obesity is the evidence of a lack of physical endeavor and boredom is the consequence of a lazy brain.

“Reading is fundamental.” Essay writing is the art and science of creation.

[Aaron]

Reading Begets Knowing, Writing Begets Understanding

Knowing is like day breaking, understanding is like lightening striking.

Comprehension is the payoff for struggle. There is a hierarchy of comprehension. Like a pyramid with the base being awareness, followed by consciousness then comes knowledge with understanding at the pinnacle of the pyramid.

Reading is the key to knowing and essay writing is the canvas for creating understanding.

Of all the creatures perhaps humans are the only ones who fail to live up to their potential. Obesity is the evidence of a lack of physical endeavor and boredom is the consequence of a lazy brain.

“Reading is fundamental.” Essay writing is the art and science of creation.

More Copy/Paste BS, if your going to respond to peoples arguments with stuff that you've pulled from other boards the least you could to is paraphrase. Obviously the Senate thread hasn't sunk in to your thick skull. What is your purpose here? Are you here just to post canned arguments?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

THe latest two replies are, unsurprisingly, copied verbatim from the aforementioned website, but it's not his work.

If you plug in the following: "I do not think understanding can be taught. Understanding is an act of creation and each of us must learn how to do it if we are every to recognize the "ecstasy of understanding". "

You get this:

Will ‘Understanding” be Extinct by 2050? as the title of a piece he posted in 2006. He's not even paying attention to anything anyone's saying at this point, which is clear. I think, personally, he's trying to get everyone riled up with this game.

[Cao Cao]

You're continuing this copy-paste asshattery either because you're doing it on purpose to annoy, or you're just a moron.
Regardless, I doubt you'll last around here much longer.

[J]

Remember kids, this is why you shouldn't learn philosophy through watching The Matrix trilogy.

[Stark]

So he's ignoring absolutely everything - even being POINTED AT THE RULES and HAVING HIS METHOD EXPOSED? I hope the Senate does away with him quickly.

It's actually kind of sad that he's been crossposting the same retarded shit all over the internet for years. As far as I know, he's never once actually tried to discuss his ideas, or even present them in any form other than 'stupid one-line soundbytes'.

[rhoenix]

It's almost like he's fishing for people to recognize his genius. I think this user and the timecube guy should get together.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Have we actually seen any evidence that this is a real human being and not some elaborate and annoying spambot?

You guys are probably arguing with a 486 in Slovakia running a script-kiddy's program on EARTH SHATTERING revelations of the mind. If not, then this is a very sorry specimen of the species.

[Stark]

Have we actually seen any evidence that this is a real human being and not some elaborate and annoying spambot?

You guys are probably arguing with a 486 in Slovakia running a script-kiddy's program on EARTH SHATTERING revelations of the mind. If not, then this is a very sorry specimen of the species.

This possibility has been mentioned, and probably wouldn't surprise anyone. I think the idea that it's actually a person (a REALLY STUPID person with OCD) is much more amusing.

Since he's zero-contribution, irritating, and spamming I hope he goes away.

[Patrick Ogaard]

I think one problem is that a lot of people today thing learning is boring or a snore-chore. A lot of people would rather veg. out in front of the boob tube all day long and do nothing.

The hard part is to try to convince people that it is not boring; I think that's hard because I don't think people really have that mindset or it's likely to happen. People don't change their habits and mentalities easily.

People do watch a lot of TV because it's essentially passive entertainment and learning, while reading is far more active and straining. People are generallhy creatures who gravitate toward pleasure and laziness. Now, not all people are like this. I have no ideally, really, what makes some people do it and some people not do it, other than perhaps the family environment influencing opportunity and interest.

Laziness, however, goes far beyond its manifestation in watching TV. I can't even get professionals to do their jobs half of the time because they would rather be doing something that takes less effort, time, and strain.


Now, I read all the time, although not as much as I would like, but I recognize it's not an activity you can mindlessly veg out on after a day of doing other things. Some people probably just don't see the utility in learning something that probably has no direct impact on their lives. You would be amazed how interested people become in learning information about obscure shit when it actually affects them (e.g. ABA).

I think that we all have great and varied abilities and potentials; the problem seems to be one of discovering these potentials and them turning that potential energy into kinetic energy. The problem is utilizing that energy for some form of action that is appropriate for that particular person.

...
[snip]
...

I am not suggesting a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon. I am suggesting a ‘Lewis and Clark Expedition’. I am suggesting the intellectual equivalent of crossing the Mississippi and heading West across unexplored intellectual territory with the intellectual equivalent of the Pacific Ocean as a destination.

How is that a response? Perhaps more importantly, how is that not a snidely insulting and intellectually lazy non-response? If you happen to be the Chuck Oberst who authored the article that was simply cut and pasted as a response, fine, but enormously lazy and quite likely violating the copyright as asserted by Life Media in the masthead of the March/April 2005 edition of Life Learning Magazine. http://www.lifelearningmagazine.com/0504/MarApr05.pdf If it's a matter of a creeping descent into senile dementia, though, your family has my deepest sympathies.

If you are not Chuck Oberst, then I really don't have any pithy things to say, merely that it's lazy, intellectually dishonest, and just plain stupid, not to mention that matter of legality. That other posters have pointed out an apparent pattern of such dishonesty just makes it worse.

[Setesh]

Granted, the remote control and land navigation examples were a bad one. On the other hand, we can recover nuclear physics for engineers from QFTs. We can recover the covariant derivative from Levi-Civita connections. Yet you don't need QFT to use Lawson's criterion, and you don't need to know affine connections to use Christoffel symbols.

While you can technically garner nuculear physics from QFT to do so would be more than a little silly. Its like saying you can recover multiplication from trigonometry. Actually most people who work in Quantum Field Theory couldn't run a nuclear reactor. Its a related but different skill set.

Likewise the antisymmetric symbol isn't a strict necessity in tensor calculus, but when working with pseudo-vectors it becomes rather important. Since only certain theoretical fields would need to your argument falls flat again.

Since Affine Connections weren't fully realized until after Christoffel symbols had been in use for almost 50 years I'm not sure where your going on that one.

[metavac]

While you can technically garner nuculear physics from QFT to do so would be more than a little silly.

I don't think anybody would disagree with you. My point is understanding of one is derivable from understanding of another, not that it's useful to do so. In fact, as I was saying before this tangent, I think coberst' point is that it's always or at least most of the time useful to derive applicable understanding from underlying knowledge. I can't tell, because the man refuses to clarify his remarks.

Its like saying you can recover multiplication from trigonometry.

Multiplication isn't derived from trig.

Likewise the antisymmetric symbol isn't a strict necessity in tensor calculus, but when working with pseudo-vectors it becomes rather important. Since only certain theoretical fields would need to your argument falls flat again.

That doesn't change the fact that pseudo tensors under improper rotations further completes the body of knowledge that falls under tensor calculus.

Since Affine Connections weren't fully realized until after Christoffel symbols had been in use for almost 50 years I'm not sure where your going on that one.

In the same direction. Simply because the discovery of the proton predates the discovery of the quark by about the same amount of time doesn't invalidate the fact that elementary nuclear physics is recoverable in the Standard Model.

[Setesh]

I think coberst' point is that it's always or at least most of the time useful to derive applicable understanding from underlying knowledge. I can't tell, because the man refuses to clarify his remarks.

On this I think we agree. (That I think our thread hijak should end now even if it is more interesting then coberst's rambles.) It is more than clear that he has little idea what the text he's C&P-ing means so can't clarify any of it.

I also just now noticed he makes early allusions to being older for no particular reason, thereby setting up a standard troll tactic of lying about his age to make his point seem somehow more authoritative because he has 'experience' greater than ours.

[Resinence]

Coberst: What is the fifth letter in this sentence?

If you truly are a human being, that should be trivial to answer correctly. If you're just some stupid spam bot with an algorithm, not so much.

[Stark]

Coberst: What is the fifth letter in this sentence?

If you truly are a human being, that should be trivial to answer correctly. If you're just some stupid spam bot with an algorithm, not so much.

AIpwned? I don't expect him to reply - unless he was provided with a cut'n'paste reply.